Although I really think there is a case for everyone only making comments about players other than their favourites!!!

Now I realise this is never going to happen, but I for one have more respect for comments made by people about players other than their favourites

Click to expand...

Well I am not a big fan of any of these 3 players I admit and I find it very hard to pick for this year. One interesting thing is that it looks like Vilas had Connor's # this year, Borg as usual and always had Vilas's # just like any other year, and Connor's still mostly had Borg's # in 1977 (though it was getting closer). So alot of it came down to who faced who. Vilas was lucky he avoided his ultimate nemisis Borg for some of his big wins that year.

What do you mean by best record? Best W-L record? There is no need for a poll for this. You can find the W-L record yourself.

Click to expand...

That's pretty meaningless obfuscation. The purpose of the poll is not to show the record, but to find out how people around here interpret it.

Ranking between two players is determined by interpreting their playing record. If not, by what? Spiritual sessions with crystal balls? Ranking systems are nothing but record-interpretation systems. All of them are by necessity arbitrary, in the sense that all measuring systems are arbitrary. And sometimes they seem very blatantly wrong or unfair. 1977 seems the best example of this. So it makes sense to establish a poll for people to express their interpretation of the record. What's wrong with that?

The Grand Prix Masters which Connors won in 1977 was much more a true major than say the French Open was that year given the field. Connors, Vilas, and Borg each won 1 of the 3 truly biggest events of the year, and Connors was in the finals of all 3. Vilas's U.S Open win was fully valid and tremendous but my overall rankings for the year would be: 1. Connors, 2. Borg, 3. Vilas

The Grand Prix Masters which Connors won in 1977 was much more a true major than say the French Open was that year given the field. Connors, Vilas, and Borg each won 1 of the 3 truly biggest events of the year, and Connors was in the finals of all 3. Vilas's U.S Open win was fully valid and tremendous but my overall rankings for the year would be: 1. Connors, 2. Borg, 3. Vilas

Click to expand...

Grand Slams were always more important than the Masters, and Connors didn't win one Grand Slam that year. He can't be the N°1. It's Vilas (2 Grand Slams + 1 Final + 16 tournaments + 46 matches won consecutively)

Grand Slams were always more important than the Masters, and Connors didn't win one Grand Slam that year. He can't be the N°1. It's Vilas (2 Grand Slams + 1 Final + 16 tournaments + 46 matches won consecutively)

Click to expand...

If the Australian and French Opens were 2 of the most relevant 4 events in 1977 than how do you explain there are atleast 8 events that attracted stronger fields that year?

The Grand Prix Masters which Connors won in 1977 was much more a true major than say the French Open was that year given the field. Connors, Vilas, and Borg each won 1 of the 3 truly biggest events of the year, and Connors was in the finals of all 3. Vilas's U.S Open win was fully valid and tremendous but my overall rankings for the year would be: 1. Connors, 2. Borg, 3. Vilas

Guillermo Vilas - 16 titles in 1977, all but 3 on clay (three very minor events on hard/carpet)

Click to expand...

Jimmy Connors won 8 titles in 1977 (no majors)
All wins on hardcourt or carpet.
One final on grass (Wimbledon) and three on clay but they were American clay (including the US Open).
Lost at majors to both Borg and Vilas.
ALL but one of Connors' wins were in the United States (the other was in Australia).
Won the year-end Masters BUT on carpet and in the USA which weakens its value.
No Davis Cup
0-2 against Vilas (once at the US Open and once at the Masters - the latter result showing the weakness of that event)
1-2 against Borg (one being at Wimbledon)

Absolutely NOT #1 in 1977. NOT even in the equation, unless you rig the system.

Vilas won 13 tournaments on clay,
Won two majors (one on European clay and one on American clay - a notable difference).
Won 3 tournaments on carpet and on hard court in the United States.
Won tournaments in South America, North America and Europe
Had one runner-up finish at a major and one his worst surface (grass).
Had a Davis Cup singles record of 6-0. Took Argentina into the semi-finals
2-0 against Connors (see above)
0-3 against Borg

Rightfully #1 for 1977

Borg won 11 tournaments.
Won 5 on clay, one on grass and 5 on carpet and hardcourt.
Won one major (the biggest), no runner-up finishes
Won in the United States and Europe
3-0 against Vilas
2-1 against Connors

Rightfully #2 for 1977, arguably #1 but I think Vilas much more deserving.

Personally, I think Borg was the best player of that year (and every year from 1976-1980) BUT I do believe that Vilas amassed more than enough of the best results to fairly claim the #1 spot.

I also believe that if Connors had been South American he wouldn't have been gifted the #1 ranking in 1977, but that's another issue altogether.

That must have been an exciting time for mens tennis. 3 guys who were each arguably the #1 for the year, Nastase the underachieving but ultra talented clown still lurking, Tanner and his huge serve which nobody could take lightly, a young McEnroe just starting to make some noise, Gerulatis always a potential contender, Panatta another unpedictable talent always a possible spoiler- especialy on clay.

Jimmy Connors won 8 titles in 1977 (no majors)
All wins on hardcourt or carpet.
One final on grass (Wimbledon) and three on clay but they were American clay (including the US Open).
Lost at majors to both Borg and Vilas.
ALL but one of Connors' wins were in the United States (the other was in Australia).
Won the year-end Masters BUT on carpet and in the USA which weakens its value.
No Davis Cup
0-2 against Vilas (once at the US Open and once at the Masters - the latter result showing the weakness of that event)
1-2 against Borg (one being at Wimbledon)

Absolutely NOT #1 in 1977. NOT even in the equation, unless you rig the system.

Click to expand...

I think a very strong argument can be made for Connors being a co-#1 that year.

The Masters drew better top players than the French. It had each of Connors, Borg and Vilas. Connors won that tournament. This is big and important.

Connors we can say with great certainty put together better results than Vilas on carpet and grass. Vilas was better on clay in general. Red by default.

Looks close to me. Like a lot of posters here you're basically granting Roland Garros automatic credit, like one would give today.

Your argument lacks nuance, lacks depth. It is also packed with a great deal of closed-minded certitude.